The resurrection of the co-operative
- This topic has 7 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Despite the failure of the Co-op bank, John McDonnell, knowing that nationalisation was not a resounding success now suggests that rail and energy and water be run by community cooperatives.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-43014861
Why the Tories should oppose it as they seem to, they forget David Cameron's endorsement of co-ops back in 2012 when Labour Party called a similar idea privatisation in disguise.
https://www.thenews.coop/37189/sector/retail/co-operatives-bill-bring-uk-legislation-date/
Quote:Earlier, Mr McDonnell told BBC Radio 4's Today programme taking services into public ownership would not ultimately increase the burden on taxpayers because government bonds could be swapped for shares in a revenue-producing company.So the parasites are going to continue to get a share of surplus value as interest on bonds instead of dividends on shares. Just like under the post-war Labour government's nationalisations which McDonnell now wants to distance himself from.His "worker-consumer" cooperatives wouldn't work either as their managers would still have to apply the laws of the market and seek to make profits (if only to survive).
That's good news for Richard Wolf to continue indicating that capitalism within capitalism is the best solution
Wolff from my reading of him has always relied upon the State supporting his Workers Self Directed Enterprises for it to "supplant" capitalist private-property society yet as a Marxist academic he fails to acknowledge the class basis of the State – that it is the executive committee of the capitalist class which means it will defend and protect their interests.For it to become an organ of the coops, fostering and nurturing the WSDEs, means the workers capturing the control of the State – a pre-requisite for building socialism and that means most likely an intense bitter class war if the workers' will is to prevail and they are to succeed. If this is so, then why does he believe we should make all this effort and sacrifice for a half-measure. If we can take political action to dislodge the capitalist class from power, why do we stop short by leaving intact the main foundations of their system? Does he lack confidence in the workers capability to run society as a whole, but hold to the idea they can only run one producing unit of it?Surely he understands that his "transitional" system will itself become its reason to be, a bulwark against any further progress towards socialism. Just as the conservative Catholic Church and the Franco fascist government intended for his pet-hobby-horse Mondragon.There are a myriad of issues with cooperatives under capitalism but i merely wished to raise a problem that i have not seen Wolff address. It is as if he thinks WSDEs will arise in a political vacuum, much like the technocrats of Zeitgeist.
Anybody can call himself or herself a Marxist, but the reality is on the practice. He is supporting what Marx and Engels rejected which were the Utopian socialists, In reality, he is an Owenian. There are many cooperatives in Bolivia which are run like capitalist enterprises, and during the sixties, there were many in the Caribbean islands too, even more, some workers unions had Cooperatives, they all failed and became capitalist enterprises, the same things goes for the communes. They will never conduct us toward a real socialist society
@ alanjjohnstoneAs I understand it, the logic of the neo-Marxist methodology is that worker action through the industrial system – taking ownership, etc. – will lead to class action. This of course bears strong similarities to anarchism. I imagine they look on the SPGB's approach as quite naive, at best, and at worst, sterile and outdated – even 'reactionary', as the term would be used in this context. Not that I agree with them, but I can understand why they might think that. You, of course, would view them as reactionary. This is difficult for me, because I have to 'switch heads' to engage in a discussion about the internal politics of socialism and pseudo-socialism. I agree that neo-Marxists are pseudo-socialists, but I can also see why they think you have misunderstood Marx. Actually I think they are 'correct', within the framework of Marxian praxeology, to the extent that they believe in a methodology rooted in a telos of human social development, whereas the SPGB seems to have uprooted historical materialism somewhat by sustaining a purist methodology that might have merely arisen out of particular historical circumstances in the 'struggle'.Which is not to say you are 'wrong' or incorrect.
I'm not very versed in abstract theoretical exchanges as you know from the past, Ike. So i may well misunderstand and leave your issue unaddressed.Our criticism of the cooperative movement, as is our critique of trade unionism in its various garbs, is empirically and evidence-based from nearly 200 years of their practice, not a projection or hypothesis stemming entirely from theory roots. As you know, we recommend them as tools in the class struggle for self-defence but recognise their limitations and from experience know that they are not stepping stones towards socialism as they have been tried and tested and found wanting in that purpose. And that they can easily be effectively adopted by non-revolutionaries for their own ends. Perhaps collective action may lead to a positive trend towards creating a collective society but that is not a guaranteed result. Running on a tread-mill is action but it doesn't lead anywhereMarx's interpretation of cooperatives is not identical to our own, being influenced by his disavowal of Lasalles proposed devils contact with the Bismarckian state in funding/underwriting coops – something that Wolffe also hopes will happen. I am fond of the synonym for socialism – "the cooperative commonwealth" – and the word "commonwealth" i would hope might resonate better with our American audience as it is incorporated in a number of US states names.
alanjjohnstone wrote:I'm not very versed in abstract theoretical exchanges as you know from the past, Ike. So i may well misunderstand and leave your issue unaddressed.Our criticism of the cooperative movement, as is our critique of trade unionism in its various garbs, is empirically and evidence-based from nearly 200 years of their practice, not a projection or hypothesis stemming entirely from theory roots. As you know, we recommend them as tools in the class struggle for self-defence but recognise their limitations and from experience know that they are not stepping stones towards socialism as they have been tried and tested and found wanting in that purpose. And that they can easily be effectively adopted by non-revolutionaries for their own ends. Perhaps collective action may lead to a positive trend towards creating a collective society but that is not a guaranteed result. Running on a tread-mill is action but it doesn't lead anywhereMarx's interpretation of cooperatives is not identical to our own, being influenced by his disavowal of Lasalles proposed devils contact with the Bismarckian state in funding/underwriting coops – something that Wolffe also hopes will happen. I am fond of the synonym for socialism – "the cooperative commonwealth" – and the word "commonwealth" i would hope might resonate better with our American audience as it is incorporated in a number of US states names.Lasalle was one of the first proponents of the vanguard party concept. Coop has been tried in Bolivia and they have failed completely and they are run as capitalist enterprises
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.